9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Review of a Civil Misc. Writ Petition based on alleged errors in the original order, consideration of demand of duty and penalty, plea of limitation, undue hardship, and security deposit. Analysis: The petitioner filed a review application challenging the original order based on alleged errors, including the demand of duty being misrepresented, plea of limitation not considered, and undue hardship not pleaded. The Tribunal's findings on limitation and lack of corroborative evidence by the department were highlighted. The High Court acknowledged the power to review its order under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. The limitations of the review powers were discussed, emphasizing the need for grave errors or new evidence for a review. The Court noted the Tribunal's observations but found no significant error warranting a review based on the demand amount discrepancy. The petitioner requested modification to deposit security, which the Court considered favorably. The Court modified the order, allowing the petitioner to deposit a reduced amount in cash and provide additional security to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority. The order specified the timeline for the deposit and security furnishing, with the condition of pre-deposit being waived upon compliance. The review petition was disposed of accordingly, with the modified order in place. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the review application, the legal principles governing review powers, the Court's assessment of errors in the original order, and the modification made regarding the security deposit. The judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal considerations and the Court's decision-making process in addressing the petitioner's concerns.
|
